3 ms·

An utterly irrelevant side point since the whole question is the use of the implementation not the API. If you call write() in Microsoft’s libc you must follow

by gumby 3y ago

An utterly irrelevant side point since the whole question is the use of the implementation not the API. If you call write() in Microsoft’s libc you must follow Microsoft’s license terms or you don’t have the right to use it. If you call glibc’s write() the same applies. And if you don’t like glibc’s terms you are free to, say, install bsd’s libc or write your own write() implementation (which probably just does a system call anyway).

juped 3y ago
I don't agree with you but I appreciate you providing me with comments like this to cite when I try to convince people "yes, FSF are really that maximalist; no, that's not a 90s relic they moved on from".
- freedomben 3y ago
  > I don't agree with you but I appreciate you providing me with comments like this to cite when I try to convince people "yes, FSF are really that maximalist; no, that's not a 90s relic they moved on from". unless you make sure that gumby is speaking for the FSF, then that comment does not provide evidence that the FSF believe that. It's merely evidence that gumby does. I don't understand why people are so quick to take somebody's personal opinion and ascribe it to whatever organization(s) they happen to belong to. This sort of fallacy is why we constantly have to suffer through the "I speak only for myself, not my organization" disclaimers
  - gumby 3y ago
    > unless you make sure that gumby is speaking for the FSF, then that comment does not provide evidence that the FSF believe that. And indeed I do not speak for the FSF and never have.
  - juped 3y ago
    You've caught me in a dastardly logic trap! Now I can never present anyone evidence for the beliefs of the FSF/GPL-user social cluster. You should try arguing in court for FSF legal theories on linking!
- Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
  And yes, it is a good thing. Some things shouldn't change just because entitled people are inconvenienced by them.
  - juped 3y ago
    Really bizarre to bring out the snarl word "entitled" over... the persistence of false legal theories?
chme 3y ago
> An utterly irrelevant side point since the whole question is the use of the implementation not the API. I find this interesting, and maybe I am just a bit confused. But here is what I am wondering now. If it is not about the use of an API but about the use of the implementation, then that would mean that the end-user that is running the application which dynamically links to a proprietary library on the end-users pc the one violating the license terms, not the developer that distributed their code without distributing the proprietary library itself. And if the developer has the rights to distribute the library, because it is under GPL, then they could do so, and would not violate the license terms, because they are not doing the dynamic linking and using of the implementation, that would happen only when the end-user starts the application. I never heard about any case against end-users, that for instance used the proprietary Nvidia kernel module, compiled and linked on each end-user's PC. I don't think that works that way, there has to be more to that than just the usage of the implementation that triggers the license violation.
- singpolyma3 3y ago
  > If it is not about the use of an API but about the use of the implementation, then that would mean that the end-user that is running the application which dynamically links to a proprietary library on the end-users pc the one violating the license terms, not the developer that distributed their code without distributing the proprietary library itself. yes > And if the developer has the rights to distribute the library, because it is under GPL, then they could do so, and would not violate the license terms, because they are not doing the dynamic linking and using of the implementation, that would happen only when the end-user starts the application. If they distribute it together though then it becomes an aggregate work

by gumby 3y ago

juped 3y ago

I don't agree with you but I appreciate you providing me with comments like this to cite when I try to convince people "yes, FSF are really that maximalist; no, that's not a 90s relic they moved on from".

freedomben 3y ago
> I don't agree with you but I appreciate you providing me with comments like this to cite when I try to convince people "yes, FSF are really that maximalist; no, that's not a 90s relic they moved on from". unless you make sure that gumby is speaking for the FSF, then that comment does not provide evidence that the FSF believe that. It's merely evidence that gumby does. I don't understand why people are so quick to take somebody's personal opinion and ascribe it to whatever organization(s) they happen to belong to. This sort of fallacy is why we constantly have to suffer through the "I speak only for myself, not my organization" disclaimers
- gumby 3y ago
  > unless you make sure that gumby is speaking for the FSF, then that comment does not provide evidence that the FSF believe that. And indeed I do not speak for the FSF and never have.
- juped 3y ago
  You've caught me in a dastardly logic trap! Now I can never present anyone evidence for the beliefs of the FSF/GPL-user social cluster. You should try arguing in court for FSF legal theories on linking!
Andrew_nenakhov 3y ago
And yes, it is a good thing. Some things shouldn't change just because entitled people are inconvenienced by them.
- juped 3y ago
  Really bizarre to bring out the snarl word "entitled" over... the persistence of false legal theories?

chme 3y ago

> An utterly irrelevant side point since the whole question is the use of the implementation not the API. I find this interesting, and maybe I am just a bit confused. But here is what I am wondering now. If it is not about the use of an API but about the use of the implementation, then that would mean that the end-user that is running the application which dynamically links to a proprietary library on the end-users pc the one violating the license terms, not the developer that distributed their code without distributing the proprietary library itself. And if the developer has the rights to distribute the library, because it is under GPL, then they could do so, and would not violate the license terms, because they are not doing the dynamic linking and using of the implementation, that would happen only when the end-user starts the application. I never heard about any case against end-users, that for instance used the proprietary Nvidia kernel module, compiled and linked on each end-user's PC. I don't think that works that way, there has to be more to that than just the usage of the implementation that triggers the license violation.

singpolyma3 3y ago
> If it is not about the use of an API but about the use of the implementation, then that would mean that the end-user that is running the application which dynamically links to a proprietary library on the end-users pc the one violating the license terms, not the developer that distributed their code without distributing the proprietary library itself. yes > And if the developer has the rights to distribute the library, because it is under GPL, then they could do so, and would not violate the license terms, because they are not doing the dynamic linking and using of the implementation, that would happen only when the end-user starts the application. If they distribute it together though then it becomes an aggregate work